It's understated article, but I submitted it because I thought there were some strong points. It's hard to find the right pull-quote for it, but I thought the

It's understated article, but I submitted it because I thought there were some strong points. It's hard to find the right pull-quote for it, but I thought the paragraphs about Libertarians being ignored are true: "I can’t help but think that efforts to unpack what separates red states from blue states haven’t been careful to differentiate between conservatives and libertarians. Venn diagrams of voters generally categorize voters as Republicans and Democrats or liberals and conservatives. But as is becoming increasingly apparent, the cool-headed libertarian in my classroom who’s willing to sacrifice his mother for the greater good doesn’t fit neatly into any of these circles." I thought the comment about the framing of the gun control argument was good: "Imagine a gun control debate that avoided an argument over the value and necessity of guns, but instead was framed around how to protect civil liberties and limit gun violence without excessive governmental involvement. Imagine if care were taken to frame the discussion not as outsiders trying to impose their will on people whose culture they did not understand, but rather as one among people with a shared interest in protecting the safety of their children. My suspicion is a conversation like that would reveal useful common ground." And I thought the comment on the abortion debate was apt: "I’ve also come to believe that if liberals started from the premise that the pro-life position is a legitimate argument that comes from love not hate, the tenor of the conversation about choice would be quite different. For if one were inclined to search for consensus rather than difference—to listen with curiosity rather than judgment—it’s possible to see far broader agreement on abortion in America than is commonly allowed." To the extent that there is a conclusion, I think it's an argument that philosophy (and a liberal arts education) can be a useful in promoting understanding and resolving conflict: "We teach people that it’s impolite to discuss religion and politics in public. It’s wrong. We need to teach people how to discuss religion and politics. ... Instead of concerning ourselves with ensuring safe spaces for students, we need to create more spaces in which constructive conflict can occur. Trust me, no one will get hurt. Even in a classroom with divergent points of view on hot-button political issues, no one at App said anything racist or bullying. ... We can teach people to distinguish unreasonable arguments from reasonable arguments with which they disagree and, where differences are unresolvable, how to disagree reasonably."